|Comments on “Tree-ring based spring precipitation reconstruction in the Sikhote-Alin Mountain Range” by Ukhvatkina and colleagues|
The authors addressed most of the referee’s comments and suggestions. The revised manuscript is improved compared to the initial version. And I would like to thank the authors for their efforts.
Provided that the editors and other referees agree, I think that the authors deserve a chance to see their work published… Yet before acceptance, I would like the authors to consider the following points.
1 - The authors state in the abstract (line 19-20): “Our reconstructions have 3, 15 and 60-year periods, which suggests the influence of the El Niño-Southern Oscillation and Pacific Decadal Oscillation on the region’s climate and relevant processes”
This sentence slightly contradicts the results presented lines 259-260: “However, we did not find any significant correlation between precipitation reconstructions and other climatic indices (NINO3, NINO4, NINO3.4, SOI, PDO and AO)”
I would encourage the author to rephrase the sentence found in the abstract or even to remove it completely.
The authors correlated instrumental data from their study area with ENSO, PDO and AO indices. The correlation values presented in the manuscript appear to be statistically significant, yet the values are not very high…
So my question is can we really conclude that PDO, AO, and ENSO have a discernible influence on Sikhote-Alin Mountain Range merely looking at correlations values?
I would encourage the authors to be really careful and to state whenever possible in the manuscript that further analysis would be required to be able to draw definitive conclusions on this matter.
Investigating the influence of modes of variability on tree-growth is now very trendy amongst dendroclimatologists. Yet in my opinion you don’t necessarily need to prove that your tree-ring reconstructions reflect past ENSO/PDO/AO variability to publish a very interesting paper.
Lines 71-72: « The study area is located in northeast Asia and includes three points located in the southern, central and north-western parts of the Sikhote-Alin Mountain Range, Southeastern Russia”
The author frequently employ the term “point” in the manuscript when they refer to study sites. Wouldn’t it be better to use the word “site” instead?
The author state lines 60: (3) “to analyze the periodicity of 60climatic events and their driving forces”
What about: (3) to investigate the influence of modes of variability such as ENSO, PDO on tree-growth (or on the Sikhote-Alin Mountain Range)?
Lines 110-110 […] “the COFECHA program (Holmes, 1983) was used to check the accuracy of the cross-dated measurements”.
Maybe the authors could consider adding the COFECHA output to the supplementary material.
Lines 136-137: Low-frequency time series variations in reconstructed precipitation were summarized with moving averages (5-year)
The use of word “summarized” sounds odd in this context… Obtained or an equivalent word maybe?
I am not sure that a 5 year running mean really allows you to obtain a low frequency time-series…
Lines 158-159: The statistical characteristics of the chronologies are listed in Table 2.
Shouldn’t it be Table 1?
Lines 201-203: The correlation between the precipitation reconstructions was significant at all three points yet varied as follows: 35% inthecase of CSA-NSA, 22% in the case of NSA-SSA and 44% in the case of CSA-SSA.
I am not sure that I understand this sentence…
Lines 222-224: A 5-year moving average of the reconstruction demonstrates multi-annual to decadal variation in April-June precipitation and suggests prolonged wet and dry events, most of them were in 17th and 18th centuries
Is a five 5 year running relevant to analyze decadal variations?
Line 333: draughts
Shouldn’t it be droughts?
Conclusion - Line 406: Thus, our results enable better understanding of future climatic trajectories in Northeast Asia.
I am not sure that I understand why… Could the authors provide more details?
It may have been interesting to add somewhere in the conclusion that the authors’ tree-ring chronologies could be used by the PAGES Hydro2k consortium and/or to update the MADA PDSI dataset developed by Cook et al. (2010).